Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 1298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
U. Palani
Vs.
The Registrar, Annamalai University and Anr.
Decided On: 21.12.2000
The main legal point established is that amendments to pension rules should be interpreted in the context of whether they introduce a new retiral benefit or liberalize the existing scheme, and existing pensioners may be entitled to the benefit of such amendments.
Headnote:
PENSION - Qualifying Service - Statute 3(ii), G.O.Ms.No. 1098 (Education), dated 18th July, 1972 - The court discussed the amendments to Statute 3(ii) and the relevant Government Orders, and their application to the petitioner's claim for enhanced qualifying service and pension benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired lecturer, sought to include his previous service in other educational institutions as qualifying service for pension calculation. The University refused, citing a resolution applicable only to those in service after 1.10.1979.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments to Statute 3(ii) were meant to liberalize the existing pension scheme, not introduce a new scheme, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhanced qualifying service and pension.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the advantage of added qualifying service despite retiring before the resolution date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendments were a liberalization of the existing scheme, not a new benefit, and thus, the petitioner, as an existing pensioner, was entitled to the benefit of the amendments.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the single Judge and directed the authorities to calculate the petitioner's pension, including his earlier service in different educational institutions, within two months.
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby, the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of his pension by adding his earlier services in various other institutions to his qualifying service was refused.
2. Petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer in Tamil in Annamalai University on 6.5.1979. Once his pension was fixed, he not being satisfied with that pension, represented to the University that his earlier service rendered as Lecturer in other educational institutions should also be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pension. He calculated the total service to be 26 years, 10 months and 15 days whereas, as per the University, his qualifying service was calculated at 10 years, 10 months and 17 days only. Petitioner based his claim on the resolution passed by the University in a meeting held on 29.11.1980, whereby Statute 3(ii) was amended so as to count as qualifying service the service rendered by a teacher under all managements previously, viz., Government, Local Bodies, Aided Colleges, High Schools and Technical Educational Institutions before entering the University service of a temporary, officiating or permanent nature.
3. The University, however, had taken a defence that this advantage of enhanced qualifying service was available only to those persons, who were in service of the University on or after 1.10.1979. According to the University, since the petitioner had already retired on 6.5.1979, he could not claim this advantage and as such, not entitled to the enhanced qualifying service and resultantly enhanced pension.
4. It is an admitted position that if the previous service of the petitioner in other institutions is counted, his qualifying service would be 26 years, 10 months and 15 days. In addition to this the petitioner also claimed by way of a relief implementation of the University Grants Commission scales of pay and the consequent revision of the pensionary benefits in the light of the resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed on 30.11.1983. By that resolution the University had resolved to implement the University Grants Commission scales of pay for all lecturers, who were serving on 1.1.1974 as well as those who came to be appointed upto 31.12.1980 with monetary benefits from 1.1.1981 only. By another resolution, dated 23.6.1984, the University also resolved that the pay of all teachers, who had retired from service of the University between 1.1.1983 and 1.11.1983 to be refuted giving the benefit of higher start of Rs. 1,100 applicable to lecturers for the purpose of pensionary benefits and that such teachers should be paid the revised pension.
5. The learned single Judge has granted the petitioner the second prayer but, refused the main relief in the writ petition whereby, the petitioner had claimed the advantage of the enhanced qualifying service on the ground which we have indicated earlier. The only question, therefore, which has to be decided in this writ appeal is whether the learned Judge was right in refusing the advantage of the added qualifying service on the ground that the resolution of the University was applicable only to the teachers who were in service on 1.10.1979 and refusing the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he had already retired from the service.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant has pointed out that the University had passed the aforementioned resolution and amended the Pension Rules to bring the position on par with the rules adopted by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The learned Counsel pointed out that the concerned rule prior to the amendment was extensively amended and the following clauses came to be added:
(a) Service rendered by a teacher under all managements', viz., Government, Local Bodies and Aided Colleges, High Schools and Technical Educational Institutions before entering the University Service, whether temporary, officiating or perma
